On 27.06.21, 22:56, "Simon Kelley" wrote:
> I've committed 8a1ef367e27e570cac40d3b09920a4a60c5f7e0b which has the
> same effect as your patch, but modifies the ubus code, and contains a
> note that this needs to be looked at by someone who knows. It
> more-or-less restores the status-quo ante,
On 27/06/2021 20:19, Etan Kissling wrote:
>
>
> On 27.06.21, 19:48, "Simon Kelley" wrote:
>
>> My change made the ubus code work in the same way as DBus. It expects
>> that ubus_init() will return a non-NULL error report if something
>> unexpected and nasty happened. (maybe a configuration that
On 27.06.21, 19:48, "Simon Kelley" wrote:
> My change made the ubus code work in the same way as DBus. It expects
> that ubus_init() will return a non-NULL error report if something
> unexpected and nasty happened. (maybe a configuration that can never
> work.) If the Ubus connection cannot be
On 27/06/2021 00:22, Etan Kissling wrote:
> When using multiple dnsmasq instances Ubus only connects on one of them.
> Since 3c93e8eb41952a9c91699386132d6fe83050e9be dnsmasq crashes instead.
> This change avoids the crash, leading to a graceful retry + error log.
>
> Signed-off-by: Etan Kissling
